Would you want the government to keep an eye on everybody at all times to make sure they don't endanger public safety, litter, etc?  Would it even be worth living to you if you had no privacy? Would you not trust the system?

I'll vote later.

no way, privacy is way too important.

Of course not. And anyway, the government DOES keep an eye on you at all times, but not to keep you safe, just to make sure you stay in line and pay your taxes.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/glasses7.gif

No. I do not trust the government enough now as it is, why should I trust them then?

No. I do not trust the government enough now as it is, why should I trust them then?

Beats me.

This is a pretty pointless poll when you think about it.  This is a truism for anyone who is familiar with Orwell's work:  Government should not have too much control.

John Ashcroft probably read 1984 and viewed Big Brother as an inspirational figure.

No.

This is a pretty pointless poll when you think about it.  This is a truism for anyone who is familiar with Orwell's work:  Government should not have too much control.

John Ashcroft probably read 1984 and viewed Big Brother as an inspirational figure.

Orwell once postulated Nazi Germany with Hitler's rapid rise to total autocracy would have been impossible without radio. Orwell was suspicious of technology in government's hands, and had he lived to see the rise of the corporate fiefdoms, he would perhaps have assigned a Big Brother persona to the corporate oligarchy.

I am not anti-authority. I am ant-authoritarian. I am despise any onerous authority public or private. Our population is systematically brainwashed to resent government because government has the ability of direct taxation. Taxation is the core of it. However, corporations strongarm the government into picking up the tab for corporate failures, thus the taxpayers pay to clean up the messes corporations make, while the lion's share of profits filter up to a few greedy hands.

Last week the fascist-state propaganda wing, FOX News, went on a tear about the poor oil companies paying trillions in taxes and making mere hundreds of billions in profit. I have not verified, but I am willing to bet the taxation figures were lies. Even so, it was the taxpayer who got stuck with the bill for cleaning up the mess the petro-chemcial companies made century on our soils and in our air.

The boys in the boardroom own the politicians on Capitol Hill. Who is the REAL Big Brother today?

The boys in the boardroom own the politicians on Capitol Hill. Who is the REAL Big Brother today?


Well, this is one way to look at it and there's some truth to is, of course.
Then there're computer hackers who can steal identities....and how about the monitoring of internet use by marketing companies who manipulate us more than we know.

All that aside....
I would absolutely NOT give up privacy for the sake of public safety because...
I believe public safety is an illusion.  Life is imperfect; bad things happen; evil people exist and no human-led system will change that.

Well, this is one way to look at it and there's some truth to is, of course.
Then there're computer hackers who can steal identities....and how about the monitoring of internet use by marketing companies who manipulate us more than we know.

All that aside....
I would absolutely NOT give up privacy for the sake of public safety because...
I believe public safety is an illusion.  Life is imperfect; bad things happen; evil people exist and no human-led system will change that.


OMG! I agree with my sister! right on, con.

I believe public safety is an illusion.  Life is imperfect; bad things happen; evil people exist and no human-led system will change that.

The only way to create real public safety is to reduce economic inequalities. The reason there are very "dangerous" areas in American cities is due to economic deprivation, and desperation and rage on the part of victims of economic deprivation. Don't get me wrong. The conservatives love to talk about law and order. However, under the "law and order" they propose, the public might be safe from pipe-wielding muggers, but will be even more endangered by nightstick-wielding stormtroopers!
:o

The only way to create real public safety is to reduce economic inequalities. The reason there are very "dangerous" areas in American cities is due to economic deprivation, and desperation and rage on the part of victims of economic deprivation. Don't get me wrong. The conservatives love to talk about law and order. However, under the "law and order" they propose, the public might be safe from pipe-wielding muggers, but will be even more endangered by nightstick-wielding stormtroopers!
:o


To be honest, I don't know why you see this particular issue as a "conservatives vs. others" thing.  There will always be economic disparity.  The liberals cannot cure it; the conservatives have not created it.    No offense but the issue of "public safety," in my opinion, is more complex than that.  In fact, I never even thought about muggers when I saw this question -- I thought about international terrorists. 

Not no, but HELL NO!!!



Cat

F%@K NO!!!

To be honest, I don't know why you see this particular issue as a "conservatives vs. others" thing.  There will always be economic disparity.  The liberals cannot cure it; the conservatives have not created it.    No offense but the issue of "public safety," in my opinion, is more complex than that.  In fact, I never even thought about muggers when I saw this question -- I thought about international terrorists. 

I am talking about this year. According to Daniel Ellsberg,* the George W. Bush administration has put the building blocks of a police state together, but the switch hasn't been thrown yet. I heard him use this mixed metaphor on the radio just now. Ellsberg is no dummy, I'll fogive him a mixed metaphor. What he means is the police state--literally a fascist dictatorship that will end our democracy by force--is set up and ready to go. This government will be able to throw the proverbial "switch" if they remain in power in the legislative and executive branches in 2006 and 2008.

There is not ONE designer nor supporter of this imminent fascist dictatorship who identifies himself or herself as a "liberal."

There were liberals who got swindled into the Ronald Reagan agenda in the early '80s, and "conservative" economics appealed to "social" liberals well into the 1990s. However, Dubya has alienated every last liberal from his fascist agenda (except maybe a few self-identified liberals who are congitally insane or irretrievably stupid).

Remember this, however, the careers of the men at the helm of the Bush polices (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, et al.) formed their political ideologies and started their political careers in the Nixon and Ford administrations. The Reagan Administration was chock-full of men who believed not in democracy but in corperatism (aka. fascism), and were unequivocal about this matter among their peers. The public heard little of this from Reagan stormtroopers such as Poindexter, Meese, and Bush the Elder. None of these men called themselves "liberal."

The public in the 1980s was not ready to hear their own government say, "Democracy sucks, Fascism is where it's at." A big chunk of the public is almost ready to hand over democracy for tyranny in the welling spirit of fear and nativism post 9/11.  If the government stays Republican in the next two elections, the portions of the public who remain obdurate about giving up this quaint notion of democracy will be imprisoned in the camps Kellogg, Brown, and Root is currently building coast to coast.

The point is, the incipient police state has indeed come from the conservative movement. I call it "end-stage Reagan disease."

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2006/03/bushs_mysteriou.html

"When there is nothing left but sorrow and love of Big Brother, we shall shoot you."
--O'Brien
"Nineteen Eighty-Four"
(Radford script)

Would you want the government to keep an eye on everybody at all times to make sure they don't endanger public safety, litter, etc?  Would it even be worth living to you if you had no privacy? Would you not trust the system?

I'll vote later.


We're closer to a 1984 Big Brother sort of world than most people, even the conspiracy-theorists realise. There are few public areas in major cities that are not scanned by security-cameras, etc., and that is just the start of it.

We're closer to a 1984 Big Brother sort of world than most people, even the conspiracy-theorists realise. There are few public areas in major cities that are not scanned by security-cameras, etc., and that is just the start of it.

George W. Bush sez:

We can wath what you're doing
but
you can't watch what we're doing!

We're closer to a 1984 Big Brother sort of world than most people, even the conspiracy-theorists realise. There are few public areas in major cities that are not scanned by security-cameras, etc., and that is just the start of it.


The future is now.  Unfortunately, Orwell guessed it better than Rodenberry.

George W. Bush sez:

We can wath what you're doing
but
you can't watch what we're doing!


Do you think "Big Brother" is Republican?  Big Brother doesn't get smaller from one party to another.  He only changes the reasons he wants to rule over our private lives.

Do you think "Big Brother" is Republican?  Big Brother doesn't get smaller from one party to another.  He only changes the reasons he wants to rule over our private lives.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilence. Right now the men and women in power imminently endangering our liberties are Republicans. It's that simple. If Democrats seized control of the government and started behaving the same way, they would get no quarter from me on account of party.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilence. Right now the men and women in power imminently endangering our liberties are Republicans. It's that simple. If Democrats seized control of the government and started behaving the same way, they would get no quarter from me on account of party.



Well in that case...I spoke too quickly.  Thanks for clarifying. :)

But if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we really have to be afraid of? Is there anything you do behind closed doors that, apart from being embaressing, would really be illicit in any way?  ;)

As scary a thought as it sounds, it would be theoretically quite simple for Big Brother to bug every household/dwelling with tiny, micro-video cameras, monitored 24/7. The possibilities would be tantalisingly endless!

But if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we really have to be afraid of? Is there anything you do behind closed doors that, apart from being embaressing, would really be illicit in any way?  ;)


You raise an excellent point -- with which I must take issue.  Who should have the power to decide whether or not your actions are "wrong"?  To what extent do you want your every word and action analyzed by some government agent.  And when power shifts, which it always does in this country, and the "right and wrong" deciders shift, how careful do you want to be in your own home?  In your own car?  Personally, I don't think this will happen.  But theoretically, it could.  I don't want "thought police" in my home. 

As scary a thought as it sounds, it would be theoretically quite simple for Big Brother to bug every household/dwelling with tiny, micro-video cameras, monitored 24/7. The possibilities would be tantalisingly endless!


I have stated this before, the technology already exists, and is installed in a majority of the homes in America at this moment in the quise of Cable, DSL, Dish, and all that stuff.  Flip a switch, reverse transmission, all there
for Big Bro to scan while having his Cheerios in the morning.

But if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we really have to be afraid of? Is there anything you do behind closed doors that, apart from being embaressing, would really be illicit in any way?  ;)

Heh heh! Maybe we ARE doing something "wrong," and we just don't know it yet! In Orwell's dystopia, there were no laws per se. If you did something the state didn't like, the stormtroopers kicked in your door and hauled you away! Surveillance = fear. There's a difference between being "watched" and "watched over," doncha know! I don't know of anybody no matter who goody-two shoes who enjoys some onerous authority nosing into their business. As Dubya said, "I don't use email because I don't want you looking my personal...stuff."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif

Heh heh! Maybe we ARE doing something "wrong," and we just don't know it yet! In Orwell's dystopia, there were no laws per se. If you did something the state didn't like, the stormtroopers kicked in your door and hauled you away! Surveillance = fear. There's a difference between being "watched" and "watched over," doncha know! I don't know of anybody no matter who goody-two shoes who enjoys some onerous authority nosing into their business. As Dubya said, "I don't use email because I don't want you looking my personal...stuff."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif




Of course I would abhorr such a concept myself, but in such a system I don't think the government would really expend all that money and resources and prosecuting every householder for merely swearing or looking at the spy-camera the wrong way. I'm more meaning severe crimes like secretly building terrorist bombs or running a drug lab, or severe domestic abuse. What if the government only prosecuted people for those crimes? Would this all-encompassing god-like power really have some justification then?

I have stated this before, the technology already exists, and is installed in a majority of the homes in America at this moment in the quise of Cable, DSL, Dish, and all that stuff.  Flip a switch, reverse transmission, all there
for Big Bro to scan while having his Cheerios in the morning.


...how did you come to this conclusion and how would this technology work?

Of course I would abhorr such a concept myself, but in such a system I don't think the government would really expend all that money and resources and prosecuting every householder for merely swearing or looking at the spy-camera the wrong way. I'm more meaning severe crimes like secretly building terrorist bombs or running a drug lab, or severe domestic abuse. What if the government only prosecuted people for those crimes? Would this all-encompassing god-like power really have some justification then?


First, I still don't want someone observing my behavior in my home, period, on principle.  Second, you assume that the government's power can be controlled in this manner.  While that's a nice idea (ah, if someone could have seen how my significant other treated me in the privacy of our house!) I think it's unrealistic.  I still say "NO WAY."

...how did you come to this conclusion and how would this technology work?


You haven't heard? Computer monitors are giant web-cams, watching your every move...

I'm more meaning severe crimes like secretly building terrorist bombs or running a drug lab, or severe domestic abuse. What if the government only prosecuted people for those crimes? Would this all-encompassing god-like power really have some justification then?

I believe this technology exists and in some cases is already in place, but there is no justification for it...
As soon as they start implanting us with micro-chips I'm heading for the hills with my guns.

>:(

Of course I would abhorr such a concept myself, but in such a system I don't think the government would really expend all that money and resources and prosecuting every householder for merely swearing or looking at the spy-camera the wrong way. I'm more meaning severe crimes like secretly building terrorist bombs or running a drug lab, or severe domestic abuse. What if the government only prosecuted people for those crimes? Would this all-encompassing god-like power really have some justification then?


I'd say so.  Also, if this was in place there would be no more need for prisons, or the death penalty, both of which I find to be flawed systems that are currently necessary.

Alright, I still don't understand how one concludes that the government is currently spying on us through our own cable and satellite devices.  How is this technically feasible?

If Democrats seized control of the government and started behaving the same way, they would get no quarter from me on account of party.

I have a deathly fear of... umm... boobs.  And beer.  Yes, boobs and beer.  Worst thing in the universe.  Scare the willies out of me, they do.  Slap a facemask on me, prop open my jaw with wires, and forcibly shove one of each in my face, and... well, I just can't go on.  Too scary. 

Now that that's out of the way - I don't think there are two parties.  I think there's one Party.  The Inner Party doctrine is that there are two separate Parties vying for control of the citizens.  By believing that there are two parties, opposed to each other, you've just delineated yourself as a member of the Outer Party.  But unfortunately, you've talked to me, and I've just signed up for reprogramming by divulging an Inner Party secret.

See you in room 101!  Woohoo!

Alright, I still don't understand how one concludes that the government is currently spying on us through our own cable and satellite devices.  How is this technically feasible?

Let's just say that no such agency is able to do such a thing.

/is also scared of single malts, on the off chance that they don't already know that

I think George Orwell meant '1984' to be a cautionary tale about what could happen if 'Big Brother' got unlimited power to meddle any way they wanted to in everyone's lives.

What's chilling about it is how much of it is coming true, especially post-9/11.

And it scares me that Dumbya and his Christian Coalition pals could use it to entrap anyone who they don't like!

And I think it's only gonna get more pervasive. "Behave yourselves....Big Brother is watching"

But if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we really have to be afraid of? Is there anything you do behind closed doors that, apart from being embaressing, would really be illicit in any way?  ;)

That's Nobody's  business but my own !  ;)

I think George Orwell meant '1984' to be a cautionary tale about what could happen if 'Big Brother' got unlimited power to meddle any way they wanted to in everyone's lives.

What's chilling about it is how much of it is coming true, especially post-9/11.

And it scares me that Dumbya and his Christian Coalition pals could use it to entrap anyone who they don't like!

And I think it's only gonna get more pervasive. "Behave yourselves....Big Brother is watching"



Have you even read the book?  The world that Winston Smith lives in is a world that would never happen here in the United States.  It's pseudo-communist, if not being full-out communist and I can NEVER see this country becoming a communist state.  EVER.  Secondly, where he lives was greatly shaped following a massive purging of their own people.........do you see that happening in this country any time soon?  I don't.  Do people die here every day?  Yes.  Are they dying because of government run hit-squads coming to their homes and abducting them and then killing them?  No.  Ministry of Love?  That'll never happen here.  Thought Police?  The FCC is bad as it gets.

1984 is a cautionary tale, but not a portents of the future.  You act like we're on the doorstep of that.  Please.  Bush'll be out in 2 years.  It'll take far longer than that to make that book come to life.

Of course I would abhorr such a concept myself, but in such a system I don't think the government would really expend all that money and resources and prosecuting every householder for merely swearing or looking at the spy-camera the wrong way. I'm more meaning severe crimes like secretly building terrorist bombs or running a drug lab, or severe domestic abuse. What if the government only prosecuted people for those crimes? Would this all-encompassing god-like power really have some justification then?

Do we in turn, get to watch the government officials under the same scrutinous eye? Probably not. Therefore, it's very one-sided . I believe those who hold power are more capable of illicit/illegal activities of the white collar/corporate sort, than any 2 bit meth lab . Let's not forget in the  1980's it was our very government who was involved in  illegal drug trafficking scandals  involving South America and Central America.. Oh and that little S&L fiasco. Yeah, sure, I'll give up my privacy to the US Government to let them protect me . HA! Not in a million years.

I have a deathly fear of... umm... boobs.  And beer.  Yes, boobs and beer.   Worst thing in the universe.  Scare the willies out of me, they do.  Slap a facemask on me, prop open my jaw with wires, and forcibly shove one of each in my face, and... well, I just can't go on.  Too scary. 

Now that that's out of the way - I don't think there are two parties.  I think there's one Party.  The Inner Party doctrine is that there are two separate Parties vying for control of the citizens.  By believing that there are two parties, opposed to each other, you've just delineated yourself as a member of the Outer Party.  But unfortunately, you've talked to me, and I've just signed up for reprogramming by divulging an Inner Party secret.

See you in room 101!  Woohoo!

The Ministry of Truth would see through a ham-handed trick like that. They already know what you are REALLY afraid of, and they don't ask once you're inside the Ministry!
The Republicans and the Democrats are chiefly business parties. They are other directed by the big money interests on which they rely for sustenance. The main difference is the Dems still have a romantic disposition to "social conscience." The Republicans are more pragmatic--reward winners and punish losers, just like Jesus said to do!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/elefant.gif


I think George Orwell meant '1984' to be a cautionary tale about what could happen if 'Big Brother' got unlimited power to meddle any way they wanted to in everyone's lives.

What's chilling about it is how much of it is coming true, especially post-9/11.

And it scares me that Dumbya and his Christian Coalition pals could use it to entrap anyone who they don't like!

And I think it's only gonna get more pervasive. "Behave yourselves....Big Brother is watching"

Exactly. Phony war was a chief compenent of world-rule by "oligarchical collectivism." Sometimes Eastasia and Oceania are friends. Sometimes they are at war. The point is war is a constant in Orwell's dystopia. The most vulgar appeals to patriotism are another component. Hatred of Emmanuel Goldstein at the "Two Minutes Hate" is  rewarded by the appearance of the benificent Big Brother on the telescreen. It turns out the Inner Party hacks wrote "Goldstein's book," and today we find Osoma and Saddam were both employed by the U.S. government. Make the enemy, and then order the populus to despise the enemy, rather than question their government. Another factor we see today similar to "1984" is a depoliticized proletariat. The vast majority of Air Strip One citizens were not even watched by Big Brother. They needn't be. The proles were utterly disempowered by ignorance and exclusion. They new no history. They new nothing of the world outside their little lives. What can you say when the majority of American adults cannot name a single Supreme Court justice, but do know "American Idol" and "The Sopranos."  There is a nefarious purpose behind the rightwing agenda to destroy the public education system.  An ignorant population is a powerless population.



Have you even read the book?  The world that Winston Smith lives in is a world that would never happen here in the United States.  It's pseudo-communist, if not being full-out communist and I can NEVER see this country becoming a communist state.  EVER.  Secondly, where he lives was greatly shaped following a massive purging of their own people.........do you see that happening in this country any time soon?  I don't.  Do people die here every day?  Yes.  Are they dying because of government run hit-squads coming to their homes and abducting them and then killing them?  No.  Ministry of Love?  That'll never happen here.  Thought Police?  The FCC is bad as it gets.

1984 is a cautionary tale, but not a portents of the future.  You act like we're on the doorstep of that.  Please.  Bush'll be out in 2 years.  It'll take far longer than that to make that book come to life.

Then again, maybe Bush won't be out in two years. He got in office against the will of the people, why not stay in office against the will of the people? I doubt we will have such a coup, but I wouldn't rule it out. Of course, the coup is unnecessary. The corporations control both major parties and they stand on the throat of the American people no matter who "wins."
Thought Police? Orwell gave people too much credit. He thought there would have to be somebody watching from the other side of the telescreen in order to control the population. It turns out our refined propaganda machine requires only that the people watch the telescreen. Nobody has to watch from the other side! Never happen here, eh? Maybe it already has!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/computer.gif

It can't happen here!
It can't happen here!
I'm telling you my dear,
that it can't happen here!
--Frank Zappa

Then again, maybe Bush won't be out in two years. He got in office against the will of the people, why not stay in office against the will of the people? I doubt we will have such a coup, but I wouldn't rule it out. Of course, the coup is unnecessary. The corporations control both major parties and they stand on the throat of the American people no matter who "wins."
Thought Police? Orwell gave people too much credit. He thought there would have to be somebody watching from the other side of the telescreen in order to control the population. It turns out our refined propaganda machine requires only that the people watch the telescreen. Nobody has to watch from the other side! Never happen here, eh? Maybe it already has!


If you think Bush is going to pull a Roosevelt and go for a 3rd term, you're out of your damn mind.  Seriously.  There is no way in hell he will do it and I'm willing to bet everything I own on it.  That is how certain I am of it.  Also, need I remind you that unlike 2000, in '04, he won not only the popular vote but the electoral vote as well.  You can bitch and moan about how he became president 6 years ago, but there were no such issues 2 years ago.  As much as I don't like it, he won the election outright.  There was none of the "But Kerry won the popular vote!" malarkey like there was when he ran against Gore.  51% of the populace obviously didn't care about who was president and re-elected him. 

If you think Bush is going to pull a Roosevelt and go for a 3rd term, you're out of your damn mind.  Seriously.  There is no way in hell he will do it and I'm willing to bet everything I own on it.  That is how certain I am of it.  Also, need I remind you that unlike 2000, in '04, he won not only the popular vote but the electoral vote as well.  You can bitch and moan about how he became president 6 years ago, but there were no such issues 2 years ago.  As much as I don't like it, he won the election outright.  There was none of the "But Kerry won the popular vote!" malarkey like there was when he ran against Gore.  51% of the populace obviously didn't care about who was president and re-elected him. 

When Roosevelt won his third and fourth terms Congress had not yet passed the 22nd Amendment. It was legal.
And here is how the Bushies REALLY "won" the 2004 "election" --
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

I don't think Bush is going to attempt a coup, but I would put NOTHING past this administration. Their abuse of power is unprecedented. The Supreme Court is now rigged totally in their favor. We now have two more righty-right dipsy-doodles on the bench than when the Supremes handed over the 2000 election to Bush in a vulgarly partisan manner.  For instance, Scalia's opinion for overriding the Florida Supreme Court was that the Florida court's decision would do "irreparable harm" to Bush. Imagine what that kangaroo court is capable of now!
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1209-03.htm

When Roosevelt won his third and fourth terms Congress had not yet passed the 22nd Amendment. It was legal.

I knew that.  See, I read books and I paid attention in class.  You didn't need to tell me that.  You don't need to assume I'm stupid.

And here is how the Bushies REALLY "won" the 2004 "election" --
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

Speaking of "drinking the Kool-Aid".......you need to quit believing everything the anti-Bush people put out.  Some of it is true, most of it is just propaganda.  I've learned to pick and sort through what gets sent to me and I've learned to take most of what I read with a grain of salt.  A lot of people have an agenda, and while some of them truly want to inform people about what's going on, a lot of them don't.  A lot of them just like to spread the crap around.

I don't think Bush is going to attempt a coup

Very well then.  I didn't think you thought that crap either, but around here........I never know.

I knew that.  See, I read books and I paid attention in class.  You didn't need to tell me that.  You don't need to assume I'm stupid.

Speaking of "drinking the Kool-Aid".......you need to quit believing everything the anti-Bush people put out.  Some of it is true, most of it is just propaganda.  I've learned to pick and sort through what gets sent to me and I've learned to take most of what I read with a grain of salt.  A lot of people have an agenda, and while some of them truly want to inform people about what's going on, a lot of them don't.  A lot of them just like to spread the crap around.

Very well then.  I didn't think you thought that crap either, but around here........I never know.

Sorry, I thought you were implying something else dragging Roosevelt into it. I promise, I don't think you are stupid!
The problem the pro-Bush people have is they have never plausibly refuted the findings of Greg Palast, Vincent Bugliosi, or John Conyers. The corporate toady mainstream media just ignores these stories for the most part.  I mean, the pundits spent a lot of time calling Democrats "sore losers" and stuff, but they never get around to disproving the claims against the Bush campaigns in either election. You tell me most of what the "anti-Bush people" say is "just propaganda," but you don't say how so.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

Sorry, I thought you were implying something else dragging Roosevelt into it. I promise, I don't think you are stupid!
The problem the pro-Bush people have is they have never plausibly refuted the findings of Greg Palast, Vincent Bugliosi, or John Conyers. The corporate toady mainstream media just ignores these stories for the most part.  I mean, the pundits spent a lot of time calling Democrats "sore losers" and stuff, but they never get around to disproving the claims against the Bush campaigns in either election. You tell me most of what the "anti-Bush people" say is "just propaganda," but you don't say how so.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif




The only thing I was implying by mentioning Roosevelt was that he served more than 2 terms.  That's it.

The only thing I was implying by mentioning Roosevelt was that he served more than 2 terms.  That's it.

OK. I don't blame you for taking a pass on the other stuff.

OK. I don't blame you for taking a pass on the other stuff.


What other stuff?  It's my opinion that I think a lot of the anti-Bush stuff is propaganda.  He's hated by a lot of people and when you're that hated, a lot of what you hear is true, but I'm willing to bet that some of it is just to fire up the rest of the anti-Bush crowd.  You see it with athletes, musicians, actors, you name it.  I have no way of proving it because it's just my opinion.  I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough for you.  And for the last time, stop lumping me in with the pro-Bush people.  I didn't vote for the son of a bitch.

Excuse me for not being up to par with your superior intellect.

Speaking of "drinking the Kool-Aid".......you need to quit believing everything the anti-Bush people put out.  Some of it is true, most of it is just propaganda.  I've learned to pick and sort through what gets sent to me and I've learned to take most of what I read with a grain of salt.  A lot of people have an agenda, and while some of them truly want to inform people about what's going on, a lot of them don't.  A lot of them just like to spread the crap around.


I think this is a very good point.  Lots of political literature is manipulated information.  We, the American Public, have to be careful what we believe.  There's so much bull that's used as propaganda and unless you are in the political business or you're an academic or you have time on your hands, it's very difficult to keep up enough to know what's reliable information and what's not these days.

What other stuff?  It's my opinion that I think a lot of the anti-Bush stuff is propaganda.  He's hated by a lot of people and when you're that hated, a lot of what you hear is true, but I'm willing to bet that some of it is just to fire up the rest of the anti-Bush crowd.  You see it with athletes, musicians, actors, you name it.  I have no way of proving it because it's just my opinion.  I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough for you.  And for the last time, stop lumping me in with the pro-Bush people.  I didn't vote for the son of a bitch.

Excuse me for not being up to par with your superior intellect.



I think this is a very good point.  Lots of political literature is manipulated information.  We, the American Public, have to be careful what we believe.  There's so much bull that's used as propaganda and unless you are in the political business or you're an academic or you have time on your hands, it's very difficult to keep up enough to know what's reliable information and what's not these days.

I have indeed read conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Bush elections in which specious theories are stong together by a single winding thread. None of the three investigaters to whom I referred--Palast, Bugliosi, and Conyers--has done that. They present straightforward information, which the pro-Bush crowd cannot plausibly refute. They have their media lapdogs dish out insults instead. You, Morphine, have just mentioned one the O'Reillys and Coulters of the media employ quite often: Dissenters will say anything to stoke up hatred against Bush.
Please, I'm not lumping you in with anybody, and I did not say anything about my intellect.

For those of you who think you are not being watched, or those who don't want any goverment spying on you...Don't live or work in Millville, NJ. They have video cameras installed on downtown streets...they say it's to cut down on crime. Millville does NOT need cameras, they need cops patrolling those areas. Hey, police patrols work in my town.

I wonder what would happen if any of Millville's elected officials were caught being dishonest using those same cameras? It could happen...

Let's just say that no such agency is able to do such a thing.


/giggles at himself after reading the news today